W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > February 2012

RE: V.next: empty parameters

From: <vojtech.toman@emc.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 02:05:06 -0500
To: <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3799D0FD120AD940B731A37E36DAF3FE341A8092D6@MX20A.corp.emc.com>
Hi Alex,

Why can't you use the following?

<p:input port="parameters">

But I agree that that may still be annoying to write. 

The weird thing is that we already do default to the empty sequence for non-primary parameter input ports, but not for primary parameter input ports:

"If no explicit connection is provided for a primary parameter input port, then the port will be connected to the primary parameter input port of the pipeline which contains the step. If no connection is provided for a parameter input port other than the primary parameter input port, then the port will be connected to an empty sequence of documents."

I wonder why.


Vojtech Toman
Consultant Software Engineer
EMC | Information Intelligence Group

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Milowski [mailto:alex@milowski.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 4:15 AM
> To: XProc WG
> Subject: V.next: empty parameters
> If I could somehow never write this again:
>         <p:input port="parameters">
>             <p:inline><c:param-set/></p:inline>
>          </p:input>
> life would be much, much better.
> No parameters should somehow default to an empty set binding.
> --
> --Alex Milowski
> "The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of
> the
> inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language
> considered."
> Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2012 07:06:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:50 UTC